The collapse of the Soviet tyranny as a small victory for socialism - your oppinion

youtube.com/watch?v=bmFPGVO2fwo

Some excerpts from the presentation by Noam Chomsky:

The Leninist system was one of the greatest blows that socialism suffered in the 20th century, maybe second only to fascism. As Lenin took power, one of his first acts was to destroy the socialist institutions that had arisen in the pre-Bolshevik period: Soviets, factory councils, constituent assembly...

The world's two major propaganda systems...

Sorry for the mistake opinion not oppinion.

Socialism is totalitarianism.
Socialist are a bunch of lazy inadequate s that expect hard working people to be stripped of wealth feed their layabout supporters and political activists

As soon as Socialists get in power in any country they soon turn into Bolshevik trough feeders that become parasites on people who have worked hard to build a home and a family, If they don't get their way they use strikes and riots to put fear into the population.

How do you refer then to that part of the quote from chomsky, which has been cut out, that is:

" So now socialism, the term has been degrade"

Socialism was never degraded by anyone , Socialism always was and will always will be a degenerate political system.

If you want to label me with an ism it would a socialist. Have you ever known real poverty Dolnoslask? What you've just typed out above is typical capitalist propaganda. Ignorance of the highest order mate. Is the Daila Llama a lazy scrounger? Nelson Mandela? theres quite a few socialist out there.

Ill take a look at the vid later, i very rarely disagree with anything Chomsky says.


******* hell, socialism is the only way forward, and i mean the ONLY way, other wise there is no forward. The sharing economy and equality has to be achieved.

Do you have any idea how long 'always' is Dolnoslask? You shouldn't use words like always.

Define a hard working person Dolnoslask. a stock broker who earns £20,000 a day? or a nurse who busts her ass for £10 / hour but still needs benefits to feed her children and pay rent.

Yes the strive for bigger governments are always detrimental for the hard working individual. People that look to socialism tend to want or at least think that government will fix their problems, but in order to do so it requires stealing from someone else to fund these agendas. These things are usually done through good intentions like: free health care, free food, free school to help the needy people which is fine if this was a charity. But once the system starts to tip and people start to depend on it like a life source you can expect economic collapse and the destruction of society. You become dependent, unable to think for ones self, unable to support oneself and unable to be oneself. It is ultimately the destruction of the individual, and to me individuality is the most beautiful thing in the world, that is why I can never be a socialist.


Yes we already can see the outline effects of this, just listen to the words these activist SJW's spew from their mouths. These people tend to be uneducated, or indoctrinated with some degree that teaches them almost nothing other then being a rabid left wing in debt.

"Have you ever known real poverty Dolnoslask?"
Yes mate more than you will ever know. why do you think i dug my way out of the ***** ghetto that my parents had to live in when they were "Refugees". oh and don't try and compare this new wave of mobile phone owning nike trainer shod migrants that you see today.

There was no great Social security handout system in those days, so when some T$sser socialists start a three day week my parents had to choose, Do they eat or do us kids eat.

Szalawa I agree, Socialists are dependents like leaches on the back of a hard working man.

OK so what about the billions of people living in poverty around the planet who didn't/don't have the luxury of being brought up within leading capitalist countries and the opportunities of boom economies?

Are you aware that the combined wealth of the 80 richest billionaires is the same amount as that of the bottom 50% of the Earth's population....and something like 2 billion people still I've on less than $2 a day.


It was different in those days mate. Today we have technology to free up the human race, we no longer need people in work for 45 hours per week for the best years of their lives.

It only serves to keep the status quo exactly where they are, it only perpetuates the economy, which is basically one big scam.

Did you never stop and think, why the hell do i have to work so much? as in whats the real purpose of it? You must have asked that question to yourself.

Yos "we no longer need people in work for 45 hours per week for the best years of their lives." I agree but vanilla socialism is not the answer, I don't think you are old school vanilla Socialist commie at all, I think you have maybe evolved in understanding and I think you should find a better banner to stand under. from what you have said in your post above I would be there with you.

Yos , we don't need to do much to make a better world, lets start with removing standing armies and munitions that cost $60,000 a pop, we can move on from there.

Capitalism: An economic system that allows private ownership of production. That's it, that's all capitalism actually entails - not low taxes, or private health care, or small government. Capitalism is simply a system that does not have government control of production (the government doesn't own the factories, the companies - well, outside of car companies now - or the processes to produce products. Period). Capitalism refers to a type of economy, not a necessarily a type of government ("Social democracies" in Europe are still capitalistic countries, as the government does not control production).

Socialism: An economic system that advocates either public or direct worker ownership and administration of production and allocation of resources. Socialism removes production and wage labor as commodities, maximizing the "use value" instead of the "exchange value" - that is to say, real wealth versus phantom wealth. In a socialist economy the worker owns the production means and rights to resources.

Yos trouble with the use of the word Socialism is that many of us saw the dark side of it;s influence (Or Hijacked corruption), kick off something new you probably would get support.

I'm quite fond of the Yugoslav "Third Way", although in practice, it didn't work well due to the bureaucracy of the country. But the idea of the workers owning the means of production and being responsible for the success (or failure) of the workplace is not a terrible one, as long as it's clear that the failure of the workplace means that they collectively share the punishment as well.

The biggest problem with socialism and even social democracy is that it becomes very hard for the government to shut down failing businesses. Workers should be punished for bad decisions, but those decisions should belong to the workers as a whole and not the few. If they had to accept genuine responsibility (the company falls, you have nothing) - then people would think twice.

One reason why Germany survived 2008-onwards so well is because their society in general understands that you get paid well during the boom times and worse during the bad times, meaning that it should equal out and ensure the survival of companies. It's not a bad idea.